Nolan Bushnell says that Nintendo could be on the "path to irrelevance."

Nolan Bushnell is a legendary gaming personality and founder of what was once one of the biggest and most influential companies in games: Atari. He recently spoke to the BBC, warning that Nintendo may be doomed to suffer the same fate as his own Atari did, a long trip down the path to irrelevance.

Bushnell said that the poor sales of the Wii U means the Japanese firm is left in a "very difficult position". Indeed, industry analysts have drawn parallels between Atari's doomed Jaguar console in 1993 and the struggling Wii U. Speaking on what happened to his own Atari, Bushnell said it had been "abused by corporate charlatans" after a "glorious beginning."

Nintendo's Wii U has repeatedly failed to meet its sales forecasts, and is actually being sold below cost. Despite this, a $50 price cut is inbound for the console, and a strong lineup of upcoming games including a new Mario platformer and a new Super Smash Bros. title could be just the kick in the pants the system needs.

Bushnell went on to say that of all the new inventions he's seen in modern gaming, what excites him the most is the Occulus Rift, although he does still remain a little skeptic about it. "The problem with virtual reality has always been motion sickness," he said. "If they're able to really get the reality and the image right, with low latency, I think they'll get it.

They can always make more Mario, Zelda and Metroid games for the WiiU to compensate for the losses. As long as they keep making them, the fans will keep buying them. Nintendo's efforts to sell the WiiU to a wider audience isn't going well, but the fanatical devotion some gamers have for it ensures that they'll still be here for a while.

Atari had a few more failing consoles than just one, so to compare Nintendo's first failing(with chances of coming back) console for the past two decades to Atari's long line of failing is just premature. Even if the WiiU doesn't do well, Nintendo is far from doomed over just this one console. However, unless they step up their A game, that is a possibility. Though the same could be said for Microsoft and Sony in terms of their consoles.

These "warnings" from industry insiders about the fate of Nintendo are always hilarious. Nintendo makes plenty of mistakes, but they consistently turn a profit and the 3DS is not tearing up the handheld division with some truly great games. All the while, Microsoft is vigorously rubbing its own face in broken glass and blaming it on used games. Activision had to pay somewhere along the lines of 8b USD to save itself from the Vivendi train wreck. Ubisoft has -while making some great games- seemingly gone completely insane and is planning years of sequels for Watch Dogs, a game that is not even released yet.

TheProfessor234:With all the Nintendoom going around these days, I actually do wonder how long it would take Nintendo to go under if they just stopped making games and lived off their current reserves.

A quote from last year.

"Buried in reams of financial data is the revelation that Nintendo have 812.8 billion Yen (£6.7/$10.5 billion) in the bank - enough for it to take a 20 billion Yen loss (£163/$257 million) every year until 2052. Then there's almost 469 billion Yen (£3.8/$6.0 billion) held in premises, equipment and investments. When that runs out - we're in the year 2075 by this point - they've got some of the most valuable intellectual property in gaming to sell off before the company goes out of business."

OT: As long as Mario, Zelda and Pokémon exist. Nintendo shall too. They could drop home consoles and afford to make handhelds based on the income of their first party titles alone. I'm pretty sure the pokémon brand is worth tens of billions of dollars.

Doom972:They can always make more Mario, Zelda and Metroid games for the WiiU to compensate for the losses. As long as they keep making them, the fans will keep buying them. Nintendo's efforts to sell the WiiU to a wider audience isn't going well, but the fanatical devotion some gamers have for it ensures that they'll still be here for a while.

EDIT: Ninjas everywhere.

Phrozenflame500:Nintendo won't die unless they stage a mass IP suicide with all their first-party titles.

As long as Mario and Link still sell, Nintendo will still exist.

boom and boom.

once jeffers wakes up, this thread is about to be bouncin with nintendo morale

although i am interested in the oculus rift myself, so i can't completely dismiss what he's saying.

klaynexas3:Atari had a few more failing consoles than just one, so to compare Nintendo's first failing(with chances of coming back) console for the past two decades to Atari's long line of failing is just premature. Even if the WiiU doesn't do well, Nintendo is far from doomed over just this one console. However, unless they step up their A game, that is a possibility. Though the same could be said for Microsoft and Sony in terms of their consoles.

It's sad that you resort to making this Atari vs Nintendo. BTW, Wii U isn't Nintendo's first failing console, that would be the N64 followed by the Gamecube. The Wii U is just the worst failing console.

I might also mention that Mario, Zelda and Pokemon didn't help sell the N64 or the Gamecube and it's annoying to see everyone say that those franchises will forever keep them afloat.

That's all? Let them just stop development on everything else and make an MMO from a single player franchise. Tell me, how often does it work out when publishers turn a single player franchise into an MMO?

lets be honest here. the atari jaguar had both faulty hardware and faulty games. The designs for those games were half assed made.Now for the other consoles, i have no issue with sony or microsoft directly. But the moment 3rd party got leg room from the strong arm of nintendo especially during the ps3\360\wii era, what happened? Exploitative business practices galore. So forgive me if i dont look forward to those 3rd party games as much as other consumers. So until sony and microsoft have a stronger variety in 1st party games, im sticking fith a wiiu

Some people say that this would do well. I'm skeptical. I'm a decent MMO fan; I've played[1] moooost of the big ones. I also enjoy Pokemon; myself and my brother probably have ~10 pokemon games between us. I still wouldn't play a Pokemon MMO. So I dunno.

That's all? Let them just stop development on everything else and make an MMO from a single player franchise. Tell me, how often does it work out when publishers turn a single player franchise into an MMO?

Because obviously 'stop development on everything else' was what I was implying.

And you're absolutely right. How could they ever possibly hope to convert the complex and nuanced gameplay of collecting cute critters and battling with them onto a larger scale. Don't know what I was thinking. People would definitely not want anything to do with such a game least it destroy the continuation of such original and inspired single player hand-held releases.

Some people say that this would do well. I'm skeptical. I'm a decent MMO fan; I've played[1] moooost of the big ones. I also enjoy Pokemon; myself and my brother probably have ~10 pokemon games between us. I still wouldn't play a Pokemon MMO. So I dunno.

Edited the footnote

Making single player franchises into MMO's rarely works out well. I say rarely to cover my ass but I don't actually know of any that have worked out well. For example, Skyrim sold millions and millions of copies and Oblivion was no slouch either, I'll bet most of those Elder Scrolls fans couldn't care less about the MMO. How many people wanted a third KOTOR game instead of an MMO?

That's all? Let them just stop development on everything else and make an MMO from a single player franchise. Tell me, how often does it work out when publishers turn a single player franchise into an MMO?

Because obviously 'stop development on everything else' was what I was implying.

And you're absolutely right. How could they ever possibly hope to convert the complex and nuanced gameplay of collecting cute critters and battling with them onto a larger scale. Don't know what I was thinking. People would definitely not want anything to do with such a game least it destroy the continuation of such original and inspired single player hand-held releases.

How about you drop the sarcasm and tell me how many single player franchises turned MMO turned out well? That is what I originally asked.

Some people say that this would do well. I'm skeptical. I'm a decent MMO fan; I've played[1] moooost of the big ones. I also enjoy Pokemon; myself and my brother probably have ~10 pokemon games between us. I still wouldn't play a Pokemon MMO. So I dunno.

Edited the footnote

Making single player franchises into MMO's rarely works out well. I say rarely to cover my ass but I don't actually know of any that have worked out well. For example, Skyrim sold millions and millions of copies and Oblivion was no slouch either, I'll bet most of those Elder Scrolls fans couldn't care less about the MMO. How many people wanted a third KOTOR game instead of an MMO?

People love Pokemon for what it is.

the only thing is people play pokemon competitively all the damn timeeeee, especially online (meta-game to be exact)

so we know there is technically already a "market" or such that does the online multiplayer of it, just not in a integrated setting.

personally i've been dying for a 3D pokemon on console, or an action based pokemon game (a is roll/dodge depending on your speed of the pokemon, the triggers all are different moves the pokemon can do and x and y can be passive abilities/etc...i just think pokemon can work amazingly in an action setting like they do on the cartoons, that or i just am fucking dying for a 3D pokemon regardless of changes in gameplay, you can't tell me that shit wouldn't sell like hotcakes parents wallets couldn't orgasm with money coming out fast enough for kids.

Some people say that this would do well. I'm skeptical. I'm a decent MMO fan; I've played[1] moooost of the big ones. I also enjoy Pokemon; myself and my brother probably have ~10 pokemon games between us. I still wouldn't play a Pokemon MMO. So I dunno.

Edited the footnote

Making single player franchises into MMO's rarely works out well. I say rarely to cover my ass but I don't actually know of any that have worked out well. For example, Skyrim sold millions and millions of copies and Oblivion was no slouch either, I'll bet most of those Elder Scrolls fans couldn't care less about the MMO. How many people wanted a third KOTOR game instead of an MMO?

People love Pokemon for what it is.

the only thing is people play pokemon competitively all the damn timeeeee, especially online (meta-game to be exact)

so we know there is technically already a "market" or such that does the online multiplayer of it, just not in a integrated setting.

personally i've been dying for a 3D pokemon on console, or an action based pokemon game (a is roll/dodge depending on your speed of the pokemon, the triggers all are different moves the pokemon can do and x and y can be passive abilities/etc...i just think pokemon can work amazingly in an action setting like they do on the cartoons, that or i just am fucking dying for a 3D pokemon regardless of changes in gameplay, you can't tell me that shit wouldn't sell like hotcakes parents wallets couldn't orgasm with money coming out fast enough for kids.

Just because people play online doesn't mean they want an MMO. I do have an example.

People play Age of Empires and Age of Mythology online all the time so Microsoft used your logic and created an Age of Empires MMO, it failed.

Making single player franchises into MMO's rarely works out well. I say rarely to cover my ass but I don't actually know of any that have worked out well. For example, Skyrim sold millions and millions of copies and Oblivion was no slouch either, I'll bet most of those Elder Scrolls fans couldn't care less about the MMO. How many people wanted a third KOTOR game instead of an MMO?

People love Pokemon for what it is.

the only thing is people play pokemon competitively all the damn timeeeee, especially online (meta-game to be exact)

so we know there is technically already a "market" or such that does the online multiplayer of it, just not in a integrated setting.

personally i've been dying for a 3D pokemon on console, or an action based pokemon game (a is roll/dodge depending on your speed of the pokemon, the triggers all are different moves the pokemon can do and x and y can be passive abilities/etc...i just think pokemon can work amazingly in an action setting like they do on the cartoons, that or i just am fucking dying for a 3D pokemon regardless of changes in gameplay, you can't tell me that shit wouldn't sell like hotcakes parents wallets couldn't orgasm with money coming out fast enough for kids.

Just because people play online doesn't mean they want an MMO. I do have an example.

People play Age of Empires and Age of Mythology online all the time so Microsoft used your logic and created an Age of Empires MMO, it failed.

oh i know, believe me i'm not an mmo person, complete opposite to be certain, i was just stating that pokemon is a bit different compared to skyrim or kotor, those were EXTREME single player based games in every sense of the word, while pokemon has always had the concept of trading and battling with friends via cable or online, and all you have to do is check out a few pokemon threads to see how insanely similar/crazy the meta-gamers are compared to some mmo'ers. (not to mention how many times nintendo has had to shut down pokemon mmo's that were made by fans, they'd gain insane popularity and nintendo would QQ about it hard)

also, age of empires mmo was awful, just an awful game that destroyed a great franchise..i still remember my playthroughs of II and III being glorious.

the only thing is people play pokemon competitively all the damn timeeeee, especially online (meta-game to be exact)

so we know there is technically already a "market" or such that does the online multiplayer of it, just not in a integrated setting.

personally i've been dying for a 3D pokemon on console, or an action based pokemon game (a is roll/dodge depending on your speed of the pokemon, the triggers all are different moves the pokemon can do and x and y can be passive abilities/etc...i just think pokemon can work amazingly in an action setting like they do on the cartoons, that or i just am fucking dying for a 3D pokemon regardless of changes in gameplay, you can't tell me that shit wouldn't sell like hotcakes parents wallets couldn't orgasm with money coming out fast enough for kids.

Just because people play online doesn't mean they want an MMO. I do have an example.

People play Age of Empires and Age of Mythology online all the time so Microsoft used your logic and created an Age of Empires MMO, it failed.

oh i know, believe me i'm not an mmo person, complete opposite to be certain, i was just stating that pokemon is a bit different compared to skyrim or kotor, those were EXTREME single player based games in every sense of the word, while pokemon has always had the concept of trading and battling with friends via cable or online, and all you have to do is check out a few pokemon threads to see how insanely similar/crazy the meta-gamers are compared to some mmo'ers. (not to mention how many times nintendo has had to shut down pokemon mmo's that were made by fans, they'd gain insane popularity and nintendo would QQ about it hard)

also, age of empires mmo was awful, just an awful game that destroyed a great franchise..i still remember my playthroughs of II and III being glorious.

Age of Empires Online was awful because they took the franchise from being an RTS franchise to a quest based MMO. Those changes were made because it was an MMO and at first it didn't even contain Skirmish mode.

I imagine a Pokemon MMO would make the same mistakes. After all, if they kept the same gameplay with the optional online matches, then it would be no different than a standard Pokemon game.

Just because people play online doesn't mean they want an MMO. I do have an example.

People play Age of Empires and Age of Mythology online all the time so Microsoft used your logic and created an Age of Empires MMO, it failed.

oh i know, believe me i'm not an mmo person, complete opposite to be certain, i was just stating that pokemon is a bit different compared to skyrim or kotor, those were EXTREME single player based games in every sense of the word, while pokemon has always had the concept of trading and battling with friends via cable or online, and all you have to do is check out a few pokemon threads to see how insanely similar/crazy the meta-gamers are compared to some mmo'ers. (not to mention how many times nintendo has had to shut down pokemon mmo's that were made by fans, they'd gain insane popularity and nintendo would QQ about it hard)

also, age of empires mmo was awful, just an awful game that destroyed a great franchise..i still remember my playthroughs of II and III being glorious.

Age of Empires Online was awful because they took the franchise from being an RTS franchise to a quest based MMO. Those changes were made because it was an MMO and at first it didn't even contain Skirmish mode.

I imagine a Pokemon MMO would make the same mistakes. After all, if they kept the same gameplay with the optional online matches, then it would be no different than a standard Pokemon game.

yeah it was definitely a bad combination, and they did it in a horribly lacking way.

as i mentioned, this has been tried plenty of times before, and nintendo force chokes every dev that tries to do it, but it has been proven to work and plenty of people were interested in it/playing them when they were out for their brief time.

here is a youtube video to show one of the many off:

listen, i don't want to play a pokemon mmo, and it is quite clear that you don't want one either, but there is evidence of it working before gamefreak even touches the damn games, so quite clearly there is a market for it.

Not gonna touch this one. I've never really been a Nintendo person so, I never really got into their games or systems. And I've got no real perspective on what makes them popular. Beyond observation and assumption, that is.

I don't pretend to know if Nintendo will go under or not, but I'm not holding my breath. Would like to see a Zelda title on other platforms, though. Just saiyan.

oh i know, believe me i'm not an mmo person, complete opposite to be certain, i was just stating that pokemon is a bit different compared to skyrim or kotor, those were EXTREME single player based games in every sense of the word, while pokemon has always had the concept of trading and battling with friends via cable or online, and all you have to do is check out a few pokemon threads to see how insanely similar/crazy the meta-gamers are compared to some mmo'ers. (not to mention how many times nintendo has had to shut down pokemon mmo's that were made by fans, they'd gain insane popularity and nintendo would QQ about it hard)

also, age of empires mmo was awful, just an awful game that destroyed a great franchise..i still remember my playthroughs of II and III being glorious.

Age of Empires Online was awful because they took the franchise from being an RTS franchise to a quest based MMO. Those changes were made because it was an MMO and at first it didn't even contain Skirmish mode.

I imagine a Pokemon MMO would make the same mistakes. After all, if they kept the same gameplay with the optional online matches, then it would be no different than a standard Pokemon game.

yeah it was definitely a bad combination, and they did it in a horribly lacking way.

as i mentioned, this has been tried plenty of times before, and nintendo force chokes every dev that tries to do it, but it has been proven to work and plenty of people were interested in it/playing them when they were out for their brief time.

here is a youtube video to show one of the many off:

listen, i don't want to play a pokemon mmo, and it is quite clear that you don't want one either, but there is evidence of it working before gamefreak even touches the damn games, so quite clearly there is a market for it.

..but is the market big enough to justify it? I mean buying a Pokemon game for $35-$40 is one thing, paying a monthly fee is another.

They're not gonna go under any time soon, but if they went handheld only I wouldn't be terribly surprised. They have their fans, but to most people who play on consoles and PC, they're already irrelevant.